Should Congress Force Social Media To Investigate Foreign Propaganda Trolls? (politico.com)

"I fought foreign propaganda for the FBI," writes a former special agent from its Counterintelligence Division. Now an associate dean at Yale Law School, he's warning that "the tools we had won't work anymore." An anonymous reader quotes Politico: The bureau is now faced with huge private companies, like Facebook and Twitter, which are ostensibly neutral and have no professional or ethical obligation to vet the material they distribute. Further, foreign intelligence service propaganda agents are no longer human operatives on American soil -- they are invisible "trolls," often operating from a foreign country and behind social media accounts that make them impossible for the FBI to approach directly. Or, in the case of so-called bots -- software programs designed to simulate humans -- they might not even be people at all... [S]ocial media platforms can reach an almost limitless audience, often within days or hours, more or less for free: Russia's Facebook ads alone reached between 23 million and 70 million viewers.

Without any direct way to investigate and identify the source of the private accounts that generate this "fake news," there's literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation that can occur on such a massive scale... But Congress could pass legislation that requires social media companies to cooperate with counterintelligence in the same ways they do with law enforcement. For example, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires telecommunications companies to design their digital networks in such a way that would permit wiretaps for criminal cases. Similarly, requiring social media platforms to develop ways to vet and authenticate foreign users and proactively report potential bots to the FBI would enable the FBI to identify perception management operations as they are occurring. In addition to monitoring these specific FIS-based accounts, the FBI could publicly expose the source of particular accounts, ads or news...
"At this point, we have no choice: It's clear that our current counterintelligence strategy hasn't caught up to the age of asymmetrical information warfare," the former counterintelligence agent concludes. "Until it does, we'll be silently allowing our freedoms to be manipulated...."

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech, anyone?

Re:No

[fustakrakich]

Why would that be modded down? Free speech is precisely the issue. If one doesn't like what's being said, they can tune out. Nobody is being forced to listen or believe. It really is that simple.

Re:No

[Dutchmaan]

well then.. lets get some REAL transparency going Mr. "Anonymous Coward"... you don't have anything to HIDE do you?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech has nothing to do with transparency.... Its about protecting personal freedom of expression, surely you are not THAT stupid and you understand that?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

"Free speech is precisely the issue." BULLSHIT. You're talking about foreign agents using a network to spread propaganda for anti-US purposes, not US government "censoring" anyone based on speech that doesn't call for violence. Even the idiotic Breitbart child molesters get to speak on college campuses. Free speech isn't under any more threat than ever it was, what's under threat is whatever shred of integrity the Republican party may have once had.

Re:No

[fustakrakich]

You're talking about foreign agents using a network to spread propaganda for anti-US purposes

No, you are.

Free speech is free speech, and everybody has the right. The US is the only country on the planet that happens to have it codified into law without any qualifications. All others are mere posers.

Re:No

[Archtech]

1. As previous comments reminded you, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right - not reserved purely for US citizens.

2. One person's "propaganda" is another person's "truth", and vice-versa. If any nation ever allowed a police department like the FBI to tell its citizens which is which, it would automatically be a police state.

3. Why should anyone assume that US citizens - supposedly among the world's healthiest, best educated, and most intelligent - are unable to distinguish between truth and propaganda? Or, indeed, to exercise their own opinions and judgment about all the many statements that fall in the grey area in between?

In most parts of the world the very idea that any government department or corporations should be allowed - let alone expected - to tell citizens what to believe and what not to believe would be greeted with shocked dismay.

Re:No

[king neckbeard]

Why should I be any more concerned about foreign agents than corporations, who openly use traditional media for their propaganda? The greatest threats always come from within, and all the Russia scaremongering in the world isn't going to change that.

Re:No

[ShanghaiBill]

speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?

Here's the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you point out where it says "soil" or "citizen"? Can you also explain how such restrictions are consistent with the phrase "no law"?

Re:No

[unixisc]

Free speech, anyone?

Precisely, how about making it clear to Zuckerburg, Dorsey, Pichai, Nadella, et al that EU restrictions on speech better not apply to US citizens, and if they do, those 4 companies should be banned from operating in the US?

I know, the First Amendment doesn't apply to private organizations, which are at liberty to ban whatever they like. However, when something starts out as an open (as in free speech) platform and then morphs into something else at the behest of governments outside the US and that gets universally applied as a simple 'one-size-fits-all' implementation of those governments' requirements, it's not a bad idea to step in. It would be different if we had dozens of FaceBooks, Twitters, mobile platforms and so on, but since we don't, it's worth looking at carefully!

Re:No

[ShanghaiBill]

Nobody is being forced to listen or believe. It really is that simple.

No, it isn't that simple. The advocates of censorship don't just want to avoid hearing the message. They also want YOU to not hear the message.

This isn't about controlling what the Russians do. It is about controlling what the American people see and hear. The Russians are just the boogeyman being used as the justification.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with your first two points,

3. Why should anyone assume that US citizens - supposedly among the world's healthiest

We aren't

best educated

We aren't

and most intelligent

Honestly, on average, we Americans are probably of average intelligence

are unable to distinguish between truth and propaganda? Or, indeed, to exercise their own opinions and judgment about all the many statements that fall in the grey area in between?

In most parts of the world the very idea that any government department or corporations should be allowed - let alone expected - to tell citizens what to believe and what not to believe would be greeted with shocked dismay.

Propaganda exists because it works. Americans are just as susceptible to propaganda as the rest of the world. I don't see any problem with our government attempting to prevent another government from using verifiably false information to influence our citizens. Now, should we be telling Facebook to perform these investigations? No, that should be the FBI's job, and I'm pretty sure (although I'm providing no information to back this up) that they already have the tools and relationships to do that.

We shouldn't enact laws to declare Facebook the propaganda police, but it is important to fight propaganda.

Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[bwanagary]

Let's start with our own media and politicians who can say whatever they want without any accountability.  This is the new millennium "boy who cried wolf".  With the deluge of fake news, misinformation, disinformation and unsubstantiated information that we are bombarded with daily people are now disbelieving of anything and everything.  Before we concern ourselves with foreign "information" we need to first get our own house in order.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Mr307]

I miss the old days when we could get some reliable information from the MSM and make up our own minds, rather than this general collection of very politicized opinions with almost no facts.

Nowadays I am getting my info from many many locations and doing my best with it. Seems like a luxury item now to have a news organization actually do some real ground pounding legwork investigative journalism.

No

[chispito]

Thanks Betteridge.

Nothing new

[Dan East]

This is nothing new. The only difference is modern technology and connectivity makes the reach and impact greater. There have always been propaganda in the form of shortwave radio broadcasts, printed text (leaflets, magazines, books), one on one contact and even television. It's just that in the past a person had to more actively seek out these communications to be exposed to them. Now it is coming through in our more normal day-to-day lives.

The problem is that the bulk of the Western public is naive and takes too many things at face value. There's an innocence, if you will. A big part of that is not having been (too terribly) deceived by government to the point it led to things like mass imprisonment or death.

Misinformation and gullibility is rampant on social media and it needs to be addressed more fundamentally, but unfortunately social media represents one of the truest forms of democracy, and the results shed light on the fact that the "average" person is simply not very intelligent when it comes to certain matters.

For example, the people constantly sharing Facebook posts that say crap like "We ordered too many luxury RVs and they are last year's model so we have to give them away", and all the various permutations thereof ( http://www.snopes.com/luxury-r... ). It really takes a special kind of naivety to share something like that.

The one that is particularly annoying to me at this moment are people sharing pictures of this traffic jam from Rita (Texas, 2005) claiming it is from the Irma hurricane hitting Florida right now (and then it typically includes other stuff like "this is why so many people have to shelter in place and not evacuate"): http://www.hurricanescience.or... That is a much more subtle type of misinformation, but it is still "fake news".

So no, in answer to the question, we don't need government / corporations / etc trying to protect the American people from foreign propaganda. We need to educate the populace in a more general way to identify and filter out manipulative "fake news" and other garbage of the sort.

Re:Define foreign propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Politically correct definitions:

• A "troll" is someone whose opinion disagrees with yours.
• Propaganda is the work product of trolls.
• "Foreign Propaganda" is work product of anonymous trolls. Although nobody can prove the citizenship of an anonymous troll, the "foreign" tag makes people feel better about censoring the speech of others, as it sweeps the 1st amendment issue under the rug.

First Amendment

[doctorvo]

Just a reminder:

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

That isn't qualified by saying "except for foreign political views the US government doesn't approve of".

The First Amendment is as much a guarantee to be able to receive information freely as it is to speak freely.

The problem is ...

[fahrbot-bot]

... some people want to learn the truth and some want to validate their own beliefs. The former will continue research the things, the latter will be happy with what they find. "Fake News" is a problem for the former to weed through, but is the answer for others. Intervention and/or identification may help some, but won't make any difference to others - or may make them hold on to their beliefs more tightly. Some people have their identities built around what they believe, regardless of the truth. You can't fix that with a warning label.

Should be forced to allow all political views.

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter bans popular, but "offensive" accounts.

YouTube is creating a system to isolate "bad" videos (commenting disallowed, won't find in search, possibly can't be embedded/linked). Jordan Peterson lost his YouTube *and* GMail account because someone thought he made offensive videos (complaints eventually got it back, but what about people without clout?).

These companies have made open platforms for the public at large to use them. It would be simple enough to say that anyone who makes offers such a service to the public for free will have to comply with the principles of freedom of thought. (EULAs or Terms of Service won't get them out of this since those are contracts and the terms of contracts are set/enforced by the government.) They can ban porn and commercial spam, fine, but expressing unpopular sentiments should be allowed.

MSM Is Perceived As Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick clamp down on the internet! Free speech must only be allowed when its to OUR tune. God forbid we actually educate our citizens on what is really going on so they won't be so easily persuaded by the enemy. This here is when the internet goes to shit folks, when it challenges those in authority. It was a good run while it lasted.

Re:Nothing?

[gurps_npc]

Not true.

They can add a tag that says "Paid Russian Post" (or Paid Chinese) etc.

Say contested is very different than telling the source.

Re:Nothing?

[superwiz]

This doesn't quite work. Creating thousands or even millions of fake accounts to create a perception of groupthink narrative cannot be countered with 1 authoritative source. The groupthink news can easily smear a few authoritative sources by painting them as propaganda. I was surprised when roughly 5-10 years ago people started mocking the idea of "freedom" on the internet as foolish. It's not so surprising when you realize that foreign propaganda outlets manage to convince their own populations that this is a foolish notion and they use the same methods on domestic US consumption. Identifying location of each post is the only way to counter this smurfing of information bombardment. Imagine if the (now infamous) story about "Macedonian content farmers" was real. If all the posts they made on social media were real, they would have little to no impact. Who would trust a massive flood of posts from Macedonia?

DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[c0y]

The network we built to survive nuclear war has been weaponized against us and DARPA is giving out grants now to study how its child turned into a killer.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

Russia is trying to incite civil war and very few people see how. Their end game is not a glorious Trump presidency but a demoralized and ineffectual United States that no longer intrudes in their sphere of influence.

We're a nation of useful idiots now. Our partisan hatred makes us more willing believers in the alleged atrocities of our enemies. Credulity is vulnerability. Patriotism now requires skepticism of atrocities by political opponents and criticism of real misbehavior by our allies that feeds weaponized narratives.

What law is being broken?

[petes_PoV]

there's literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation

And since it is not illegal, why should they want the power to try?

There are no laws apart from fraud, libel and slander that dictate that everything everyone says has to be true. And if there was, then no politician would last 5 minutes before having their ass hauled off to jail.

The FBI seem to have created their own "issue" here, defined it as bad and then decided that someone else should have the duty and the obligation to fix it for them. Well, that isn't how democracies work. If something is illegal, have the law enforcement deal with it. If it isn't illegal then either make it so, or let is go.

But trying to prevent people saying stuff, just because you don't like it, is not the way to go.